Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 397 posts

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#161

Post by loeg »

cogman10 wrote: post #9
sitkack wrote: post #2

> Burdens of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar-sweetened beverages in 184 countries https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03345-4.pdf The data and the code used for the analysis appears to be available. ---- One of the reasons that we don't have Universal Healthcare in the US is that things that are categorically unhealthy would be prohibited from being sold. Afterall, it would ben…

> One of the reasons that we don't have Universal Healthcare in the US is that things that are categorically unhealthy would be prohibited from being sold. For the most unhealthy class of people that are most affected by things like T2 diabetes, we have universal healthcare. At 65 you get Medicare which covers diabetes treatment. We have yet to ban sodas despite the added cost to the taxpayers. > I personally think m…

> Unfortunately, because the legislation didn't target all nicotine products that left the door open for vape companies to come in and get Gen Z and Alpha addicted to nicotine all over again.

Gen Z and Alpha nicotine use rates are still lower than Millennials in absolute terms; it's happily not a huge problem (nevermind that stuff like Zyn is unambiguously much healthier than smoking cigs).

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#162

Post by tasty_freeze »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #134
busyant wrote: post #48

I know several people who’ve undergone bariatric surgery. One of the post-surgery ‘rules’ is … “Don’t drink your calories.”

It's odd to me that zero-calorie sodas aren't the default by now.

I used to drink a lot of soda but stopped 15 years ago and have had a total of three or four cans since. I switched to unsweetened green tea instead of a zero-calorie soda because I don't like the taste of artificial sweeteners, and I am somewhat suspicious of the unknown long-term consequences of their use.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#163

Post by malfist »

musicale wrote: post #133
Hilift wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orange juice is high in sugars. Drinking any alternative beverage with a lot of sugar is bad for your health. I believe a 12 ounce glass of orange juice is 100% of maximum sugar intake for one day. If you drank orange juice the same way you drank soda with added sugar, the health effect would be equally detrimental.

I think citric acid is better than phosphoric acid (e.g. for your bones and kidneys), though both can dissolve tooth enamel. OJ also has more vitamin C than typical sodas. Milk has more calories/ounce than soda, but it also has protein, fat, and calcium. Anecdotally, I find juice more filling than soda, milk even more so.

Citric acid and phosphoric acid likely have the same impact on your teeth and no impact on your bones and kidneys.

Acids and bases on your diet have very little to do with what pH is exposed to the rest of your body. Your stomach is probably more acid than anything you eat or drink, and your lungs and kidneys tightly regulate the pH of the blood. If your diet is effecting your blood pH, your probably already on death's door

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#164

Post by loeg »

siliconc0w wrote: post #37

I'd bet a dollar per gram additive sugar tax in excess of 5g would immediately flatten the chronic disease curve. Maybe double that if it's marketed towards kids. There are a lot of problems besides sugar/HFCS but it's easily towards the top of the list.

You're proposing something like a 500% markup on sugar? For context, that's like 400% higher than even the highest cigarette taxes.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#165

Post by loeg »

jeffbee wrote: post #132
siliconc0w wrote: post #37

I'd bet a dollar per gram additive sugar tax in excess of 5g would immediately flatten the chronic disease curve. Maybe double that if it's marketed towards kids. There are a lot of problems besides sugar/HFCS but it's easily towards the top of the list.

You want a can of Coke to cost $35? In Berkeley we have a 1¢ per fl. oz. soda tax and it cut soda sales by over 20%. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5024386/

It cut soda sales 20% in Berkeley but increased them 4% in comparison cities (SF and Oakland), among low-income households only.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#166

Post by loeg »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #134
busyant wrote: post #48

I know several people who’ve undergone bariatric surgery. One of the post-surgery ‘rules’ is … “Don’t drink your calories.”

It's odd to me that zero-calorie sodas aren't the default by now.

The older diet sodas definitely didn't taste like sugar but the new ones (Coke Zero) are pretty great? Idk, I almost never drink full sugar soda but I'm a fan of Coke Zero.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#167

Post by leptons »

exhilaration wrote: post #79
neom wrote: post #39

Interesting. I think folks in the comments here maybe missed this paper is way more about the beverages part making it important. The research is around sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs). If I'm reading it right, the SSBs have a differentmetabolic effect. "Due to their liquid form, SSBs are rapidly consumed and digested, resulting in lower satiety, higher caloric intake and weight gain. High doses of rapidly digested…

So taking myself as an example: I drink 12 oz of coffee daily (7 days per week), and I add exactly 12 grams of table sugar to my coffee each day (equivalent to 3 sugar packets), which is 45 calories. Seems like I don't have much wiggle room and should continue avoiding soda and juice.

I sweeten my coffee now with pure monkfruit. It's great in coffee, and chocolate too. It's really sweet, which is how I like my coffee, only a little is needed. And there's zero sugar or anything even close to a sugar.

The best time to stop eating sugar is yesterday. I wish I hadn't fucked up my body so much with sugar.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#168

Post by jeffbee »

loeg wrote: post #165
jeffbee wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want a can of Coke to cost $35? In Berkeley we have a 1¢ per fl. oz. soda tax and it cut soda sales by over 20%. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5024386/

It cut soda sales 20% in Berkeley but increased them 4% in comparison cities (SF and Oakland), among low-income households only.

No, that is an incorrect reading of the result. San Francisco is not a neighbor of Berkeley, and nobody started traveling 15 miles to SF to save a dime on Coke. The 4% increase in the comparison cities was exogenous.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#169

Post by Melting_Harps »

taeric wrote: post #152
Melting_Harps wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm curious if you have data showing this? Regarding the sugar tax? Only empirical/anecdotal, I'm afraid: the fact is, as mentioned in my statement and in a response below, is that it's a geographical based tax, which while annoying can be trivially circumvented. (And even then black-markets emerge to meet that demand, or better known as System-D.) A better analysis would be the effects of better health and the dec…

I'm confused on where the quote on cigarettes comes from? Isn't in my post, is it? And you didn't address that they did find modest gains to the goals in the Seattle study. I fully agree that, on the merits, this is easy to circumvent. I further agree that this sort of tax is almost certainly regressive. Largely for the reason you give of how easy it can be to get around. The study shows that, despite that, it still…

> And you didn't address that they did find modest gains to the goals in the Seattle study.

I don't have much to say, other than personally I feel it's a tacit nod to the fact they found the results they wanted from this study, because it resoundingly relies on justifying a higher sales tax and this further encourages other parts of WA to adopt it and further establish it as a form of tax revenue while trying to provide a 'social good' which can be monetized.

Again, it's not entirely hard to bypass and because it 'may' show some minor benefit to justify itself seems like how most poorly formed versions of bureaucratic gate-keeping works.

But, to take the contrarian position [0] to even my own argument it seems that in the 5 states they launched this with income taxes have also 'benefited' from these taxes. But its hard/impossible to properly measure that these consumers didn't just purchase things in a nearby city with no additional tax or just online so I think it's parameters can derive the favourable results it claims. And the following claim regarding 'significant evidence' doesn't really compel me to say it was vastly evaluated:

> But the study also looked at adjacent zip codes to the SSB-taxed cities: finding no statistically significant evidence that purchases had increased in these neighboring areas.

Which is why I defer to my anac-data, which admittedly biased illustrates that its just not effective but is entirely moot without addressing the core of the issue and principal of the matter as a whole: body autonomy.

0: https://www.beveragedaily.com/Article/2024/01/11/US-sugar-ta...

PS: That 2nd quote was not yours, but the other users who wanted to address tobacco use: I keep doing this having grown up on IRC/forums but since HN doesn't do attribution. I should find a solution to this, but making 2 posts seems tedious, I guess I can pre-fix with @ or something.

Re: Type 2 Diabetes and cardiovascular disease attributable to sugar beverages

#170

Post by chrisco255 »

pessimizer wrote: post #137
athenot wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About 15 years ago, I stopped drinking soda. Not out of a desire to be healthy or loose weight but simply because it dawned on me that for the same amount of sugar in one soft drink that I drink without any afterthought, I could enjoy a really good pastry that I can slowly savor. I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) More recently, I'm starting to apply this…

> About 15 years ago, I stopped drinking soda. Not out of a desire to be healthy or loose weight[...] Same thing happened to me at probably around the same time. I realized I could just have a lollypop, and it would be a tenth of the sugar. Most of the sweetness in soda doesn't even get a chance to touch your tongue before it's going down your throat. If I want candy, I should just have a piece of candy. If I'm thirs…

It's probably a risky line of thinking, if you're addicted to sugar, to substitute in some other source of sugar. Best to avoid pastries, lollipops and sugary sodas.
Post reply on HN